taxonomy of KR and thought of adequacy of KG

We are (were) taught AI/ KR as either symbolic or subsymbolic/conenctionist
and based  on that neurosymbolism supposedly leverages both

*Note, Its in the  scholarly papers and textbooks, I did not suggest it
myself, I am citing countless other authors*

But the more we work with this subdivision the more with struggle with it
and have to come to terms with the fact that it is notional, and possibly
even misleading and wrong.  Much discussion ensues.

A quick post to share a great article, which I think points towards a more
unified view of KR heading towards a more
system  view of KR

  Knowledge Representations in Technical Systems A Taxonomy
Kristina Scharei, Florian Heidecker, Maarten Bieshaar
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2001.04835.pdf

i feel something can come from this view
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the adequacy of KG as KR,  (Owen you picked up on that in a reply
to a post)
well, adequacy can be an objective criterion in systems engineering

for example, in AI systems modelling, we tackle bias
an adequate KR should minimise or avoid bias altogether
can KG alone, without other KR, prevent bias?